If it wasn’t illegal, which is the equivalent of saying I had proper license to do so, for instance if they were copy-left material. I would happily rip them for you, and it would not be immoral.

I’m a software developer as well, so am very aware of both the financial and social effects of copyright law.

Neither am I by any stretch of the imagination a huge open-source advocate, although I can see some merit in such works and think they have a legitimate place.

However, modern copyright law is in substantial need of reform. There should be some kind of well thought out middle ground between the consumer and the producer of the materials which include liberal provisions for fair use and a much shorter
term. The original 25 years should never have been extended.

The point is to strike a balance between what is good for society as a whole and the individual rather then creating lopsided laws that people immediately know are unjust. It is much easier to get people to voluntarily follow sensible laws than to try and enforce tyrannical restrictions on them when it is obvious those profiting are a small minority.

That being said I think there should be an entirely different category of laws created that cover specifically software. It really doesn’t fit copyright law as it was intended nor patent law as it currently exists and would be better handled by a type of law that is something in between.

If you own it, do you think you could rip me a copy of Fr. Corapi’s Catechism series? I know it would really help me grow in my faith, and I’d love for my husband to listen to it as he drives to work, but at $199 it’s out of my price range!

While you’re at it, there are also a few Ignatius Press books on tape that look really good.

Whatever you think about copyright laws, taking coyprighted intellectual property without the proper permissions is stealing.

Certainly, technology has developed to the point where any Tom, Dick and Harry garage band (Cold Play), software developer (ZDNet downloads),or author(Cory Doctorow) can give away their product to the whole world via the internet. Some companies, like Google, believe this is a better business model and have huge initiatives to develop and distribute basic packages for free. That’s Google’s choice.

Being a software developer, I am very aware that a well-developed product does not typically just spring forth fully-formed from the mind of one programmer in a couple of days. If my company decides to charge too much for a product, isn’t that its decision? Let the consumer decide. Couldn’t the same be said for a fully produced song? You’ll never convince me that you are arguably doing a neighbor good by pirating an MP3 for them. I’ve had this conversation with homeschooled, Catholic teenagers and their reactions make it obvious they know it’s stealing (but they keep on doing it anyway.)

I’ve also had this conversation with Catholic homeschooling parents who either ignore the “single use” or the more frequent and generous “within a family” stipulation on educational material. It’s the MP3 mindset, but perhaps it is graver as the publishers of a lot of good Catholic homeschooling material are, surprise, good Catholic homeschoolers just trying to support their families – not huge corporate entities. No wonder these kids think it’s OK to steal.

It is interesting to note that during biblical times there was no such concept as ‘intellectual property’. Information belonged to anyone who had use of it.

I think part of the problem with modern ‘copyright’ law is that it has completely lost focus on why it was created, which was to encourage the creation of art, by helping to ensure a income for artists. It was not intended to ‘protect’ large corporations from their customers, which is how it is often used now.

As a whole it needs to be re-thought and revised, but our society has much more serious problems to deal with so it probably isn’t worth the energy at the moment.

I’d put way down on the social justice list long after abortion , poverty, and environmental issues have been more sufficiently addressed.

First of all when it comes to MP3′s you have to ask yourself what is being stolen?
If I make a copy of something I have and then give it to you , certainly you have not stolen something from me. So the copying of music in the primary sense is not ‘theft’ in the normal way we learn it through natural law. Arguably I have done a kindness for my brother which I am obligated to. In this case , the kindness is forbidden by law.

The theft happening here is not a violation of ones personal property , but rather a violation of another’s ‘rights’ as granted under the law. The failure to pay money that is due to another because of your actions. Much more like not paying rent then taking money, but with a much less direct connection between the violator and the violated. In fact they often do not know each other or have any agreement not withstanding current law.

Certainly this too is a violation of the commandment ‘thou shall not steal’, not withstanding if the current law is ‘just’.

I think the confusion comes in when you start talking about weather or not the law is ‘just’ and I would hold that and examination of the history of copyright law makes it obvious the current laws are both out of sync with current technology ‘aka unreasonable’ and in the past 50 to 75 years have been modified repeatedly to the unfair disadvantage of society in favor of large corporate interest and possibly even to the detriment of artist who the laws were originally intended to protect.

As catholics we are bound to obey the ‘law of the land’ as it is , for the sake of building trust and out of obedience to authority. This is in opposition to the american idea of ‘civil disobedience’, which in our culture would dictate we ignore or actively resist unjust and unreasonable law.

Of coarse most of us also routinely ignore speed laws and I suspect the level of moral wrong done by most copyright violations lays somewhere in between speeding
and willfully not paying a debt that is owed.

Still a sin to be certain , but neither is it of the same caliber and type as normal ‘theft’ , which is obviously grave and often mortal.